Copehead wrote:Read it, sounds like Uma Thurman has a drivers license but can't actually drive.You can see why she had to be in the car for the shot rather than a stunt double from the director's point of view.And it seems like there was a break down in understanding about what she was capable of.A person with a driver's license should be able to drive down a single track road at 35mph without crashing into a tree, Tarantino should be more attuned to what his actors are capable of and Uma Thurman shouldn't pretend she can drive because if that is what happens on a film set she could be deadly on a public road.

In short they all sound like idiots.

The actual video is embedded in the article - have you not seen it?It's not just whether or not she can drive a single track road - the car itself looks like it's falling apart. It looks ugly from the start.I generally believe in his good intentions on this one - that he really didn't think anything could or would happen. But as Uma plainly makes clear - she put up with a tonne of crp in the interests of their artistic collaboration, and as soon as she called the "safe word" she wasn't listened to.However, Tarantino's comments on Polanski are unforgiveable and as shocking as Whoopi Goldberg's. The hypocrisy around this really is incredible. I don't read the Guardian much these days, but I felt that this was a very good and well-reasoned article (and again quite incredible that even at the height of me-too Hollywood is still defending Polanski).

It is interesting - certainly offers a broader/different perspective (and it was covered quite broadly at the time when the book was published). That said, although I think Freeman's article would have been better and even more interesting had it offered the perspective from Geimer's book, I don't think it in any way changes or undermines the thrust of her argument: irrespective of whether media has sought to victimise Geimer even more through its subsequent, sensationalised coverage, and irrespective of whether the judge was being "unfair", and irrespective of whether Polanski meant to hurt her or not (I strongly disagree with the line that rapists normally want to hurt their victims - in my experience, rapes are normally purely about self-gratification) - Polanski is still a convicted rapist and a fugitive from the law, and Hollywood's repeated defence of that, or downplaying of the crime he committed, and the line that he has "served his time" (somehow), is frankly disgusting.

And of course a lot of the people who feel that me-too has gone too far use Geimer's comments (selectively) in their support...often with the general line that in all this me-too crazyness we've forgotten to listen to the victims (somewhat ironic given Geimer's own frustration at being labelled a victim) - as if me-too wasn't started and snowballed by women and girls in their hundreds/thousands who are also victims.

bobzilla77 wrote:As regards Tarantino though, Geimer certainly doesn't cosign his version of events in which she wanted it/ was Polanski's secret underage girlfriend.

I wonder what possessed him to say that stuff!

Agreed. But Tarantino looks creepy, talks creepy, so I'm not surprised that he thinks creepy.

Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

Copehead wrote:Read it, sounds like Uma Thurman has a drivers license but can't actually drive.You can see why she had to be in the car for the shot rather than a stunt double from the director's point of view.And it seems like there was a break down in understanding about what she was capable of.A person with a driver's license should be able to drive down a single track road at 35mph without crashing into a tree, Tarantino should be more attuned to what his actors are capable of and Uma Thurman shouldn't pretend she can drive because if that is what happens on a film set she could be deadly on a public road.

In short they all sound like idiots.

The actual video is embedded in the article - have you not seen it?It's not just whether or not she can drive a single track road - the car itself looks like it's falling apart. It looks ugly from the start.I generally believe in his good intentions on this one - that he really didn't think anything could or would happen. But as Uma plainly makes clear - she put up with a tonne of crp in the interests of their artistic collaboration, and as soon as she called the "safe word" she wasn't listened to.However, Tarantino's comments on Polanski are unforgiveable and as shocking as Whoopi Goldberg's. The hypocrisy around this really is incredible. I don't read the Guardian much these days, but I felt that this was a very good and well-reasoned article (and again quite incredible that even at the height of me-too Hollywood is still defending Polanski).

I think he has just apologised for the Polanski stuff saying he was naive and didn't know the full story, he has also apologised to Thurman, I still think someone should be able to drive a car at 35 mph without barrelling into a tree but perhaps there was a serious mechanical failure with the car it is just odd to go around a slight bend and lose control like that.

Last edited by Copehead on 09 Feb 2018, 00:17, edited 1 time in total.

Geezee wrote:The actual video is embedded in the article - have you not seen it?It's not just whether or not she can drive a single track road - the car itself looks like it's falling apart. It looks ugly from the start.I generally believe in his good intentions on this one - that he really didn't think anything could or would happen. But as Uma plainly makes clear - she put up with a tonne of crp in the interests of their artistic collaboration, and as soon as she called the "safe word" she wasn't listened to.However, Tarantino's comments on Polanski are unforgiveable and as shocking as Whoopi Goldberg's. The hypocrisy around this really is incredible. I don't read the Guardian much these days, but I felt that this was a very good and well-reasoned article (and again quite incredible that even at the height of me-too Hollywood is still defending Polanski).

It is interesting - certainly offers a broader/different perspective (and it was covered quite broadly at the time when the book was published). That said, although I think Freeman's article would have been better and even more interesting had it offered the perspective from Geimer's book, I don't think it in any way changes or undermines the thrust of her argument: irrespective of whether media has sought to victimise Geimer even more through its subsequent, sensationalised coverage, and irrespective of whether the judge was being "unfair", and irrespective of whether Polanski meant to hurt her or not (I strongly disagree with the line that rapists normally want to hurt their victims - in my experience, rapes are normally purely about self-gratification) - Polanski is still a convicted rapist and a fugitive from the law, and Hollywood's repeated defence of that, or downplaying of the crime he committed, and the line that he has "served his time" (somehow), is frankly disgusting.

He probably makes money and that is what's important. This is a town where a racist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, religious maniac like Mel Gibson is feted.

Would you bet against Weinstein making a come back after his treatment for his terrible illness ends?

Would you bet against Weinstein making a come back after his treatment for his terrible illness ends?

Actually, yes. I think he is too thoroughly poisoned to come back.

You might start to see the likes of Kevin Spacey around again though, once a few years have passed and they've done their public shame tour. Some of those people will eventually get out of the stockade.

WTF, Mel Gibson's currently making Passion Of The Christ 2!!

Jimbo wrote:The Natural Times said no matter, essentially we are all doomed.

Considering the "passion" is specifically related to Jesus' sufferring on the cross, is he imagining a world where after Jesus rises from the dead, they just nail him back up there, this time using heavier gauge nails?

Jimbo wrote:The Natural Times said no matter, essentially we are all doomed.

Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model